oship-dev team mailing list archive

["Sergio Miranda Freire" <sergio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Roger,

Answering your questions:
A) it is in oeterm directory when you update the source code from the trunk.
B) I am not in my computer now, but I think there is just one module in that directory.
C and D) The package is org.openehr.rm.support.terminology and the specification is in the support_im.pdf doc in the openEHR site.

Since you are working with ICD10, this issue directly concerns you. I agree with most of Tim's answer, except what concerns the termserver.
I will return to this issue later, but before I will have a closer look at his code and at the specs again. 

Cheers,

Sergio 

-----Mensagem original-----
De: Roger Erens [mailto:roger.erens@xxxxxxxxx] 
Enviada em: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:00 AM
Para: timothywayne.cook@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Sergio Miranda Freire; OSHIP-Dev
Assunto: Re: [Oship-dev] Recent re-factoring to Grok was: RES: openEHR Terminology source file

Hi Sergio,

I'd like to understand the discussion better, but I'm a little lost 
right now. Could you perhaps help me?

A) which directory are you looking at in relation to the termserver?
B) which file implements the term server not following the specs?
C) what is the path of the directory containing the rm terminology 
package that specifies interfaces?
D) which document describes the (openEHR?) specs relating to this?

Maybe answering one of A, B, C is enough to discover the answer to the 
other two questions, so don't waste too much time in answering 
everything :-)

Thanks,

Roger

on 19-3-2009 2:12 Tim Cook wrote:
> Hi Sergio,
> 
> Thanks for permission to move this to the discussion list.  I will leave
> your email intact and reply below it.
> 
> On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 09:04 -0300, Sergio Miranda Freire wrote:
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> I installed the latest version and started to look at the code. 
>> In relation to the termserver, as far as I could see, you implemented a term
>> server to solve your immediate problem, but it does not follow the specs.
>> I mean, it does not implement the interfaces specified in the rm terminology
>> package. Do you agree?
>> If yes, I will refactor my original implementation to adapt your code, but
>> also implementing those interfaces, ok?
>>